activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Git workflow for committers
Date Mon, 08 Jun 2015 16:19:42 GMT
Daniel,

Bruce asked about the workflow that committers use today because of some 
questions that were raised. I dont think any replies are mandating that 
ActiveMQ should follow a different route they are just commenting on the 
way they currently work. This is just a discussion about the pros and 
cons of different approaches as far as I can see and to document what 
ActiveMQ currently does, I'm not sure this is currently documented.

On 08/06/15 17:01, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Apache ActiveMQ has always been “Commit then Review”.    This workflow completely
changes that and if you want to start the whole argument about an external project subsuming
the processes that are currently in place for THIS project, feel free.   It likely won’t
go well.
>
> Second, a rule at Apache is if it didn’t appear on our lists, it’s not done.   Thus,
anything NOT pushed to Apache hasn’t happened.   There isn’t anything to discuss.   Anything
you do in your personal github fork is irrelevant until it appears in the Apache repo and
the appropriate commit messages sent off to the dev list to be reviewed.   That’s exactly
why I said feature branches can be done at Apache.
>
> And your #3 also completely changes how ActiveMQ has worked in the past.   Again, not
something to be taken lightly.  (and something I would vote against)
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>> On Jun 8, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Justin Bertram <jbertram@apache.com> wrote:
>>
>> Daniel, the workflow is essentially what I follow as a committer.  I never push straight
to the master on the official Apache repo.  GitHub offers me a few distinct advantages:
>>
>>   1. Automated PR builds.  I could run the PR build locally but then that ties up
my machine when I could be working on something else.
>>   2. Chance for discussion *before* the commit is made on the official Apache repo.
 If there's something wrong with the PR then you want to catch it before it's committed, not
after.
>>   3. Allows someone other than the developer who made the changes to merge the commit.
 This is a rule we follow pretty closely and it should probably be specifically outlined in
the hackng guide.
>>
>> BTW, here's some notes specifically for project maintainers: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/docs/hacking-guide/en/maintainers.md
>>
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Daniel Kulp" <dkulp@apache.org>
>> To: dev@activemq.apache.org
>> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 8:41:56 AM
>> Subject: Re: Git workflow for committers
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 8, 2015, at 9:35 AM, Justin Bertram <jbertram@apache.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> We recently published a Hacking Guide that outlines the typical development cycle:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/docs/hacking-guide/en/code.md#typical-development-cycle
>>>
>>> Improvements are certainly welcome.
>>
>> I think this is ok for workflow for non-committers.  Nice to have that documented.
  Committers should not have to go through github.
>>
>> In particular: step 4 can just be push your branch to a new branch at Apache.  There
isn’t a need for github for that
>> Step 5:  if you push to Apache in step 4, all the commits would be on the Apache
commits list and would be fine for discussion from there.
>> Step 7:  if you are a committer, just push it to master.  There is no need for the
pull requests from github.
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Justin
>>>
>>> P.S. I already sent a PR to get the references to the old JIRA repo (i.e. ACTIVEMQ6)
updated to the new one (i.e. ARTEMIS).
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Bruce Snyder" <bruce.snyder@gmail.com>
>>> To: dev@activemq.apache.org
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2015 2:10:14 PM
>>> Subject: Git workflow for committers
>>>
>>> New committer Marc Schöchlin has raised some questions about the git
>>> workflow to use as he continues to work on the init scripts. This is a
>>> perfect opportunity for all committers to discuss the workflow that we
>>> recommend be used when working on ActiveMQ projects and I will document the
>>> end result on the wiki in association with the 'How To Become a
>>> Committer...' page.
>>>
>>> After many years of experience with git, I am a big fan of git flow (
>>> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/) but I don't
>>> believe that is being used on ActiveMQ. So what is the general git workflow
>>> that committers use today?
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> --
>>> perl -e 'print
>>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
>>>
>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
>>> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>


Mime
View raw message